Bill in congress would boost retirement age

[321 busdriver]

Right on the money! And thank you.

For the UAL or USAIR pilot 3% per year for 5 years would be great. If lucky they will get 20% of their expected pension, big difference between $130,000 and the reality of $27,000. F/As and mechanics may retire with a highter PBGC pension because they are not forced to retire at age 60.

Where I work there is another upside to changing the age upward. If I'm age 55 with 15 years service and medical out I get disability until I turn 60 and retire with 20 years service or 40% of Avg of best five years. If 65 becomes the normal retirement age I would collect disability till age 65 then retire with 25 years service or 50% of my best five years.

Not sure where guys live to an average of 63 years. I just read about two guys I has flown with that just turned 90. We had a guy retire a few year ago at age 80, flew P47s in Europe during WW2.

Hell, I get F/Os that can't understand the radio, understand the airplane, know the difference between getting cleared to eight zero and eight thousand, know when to change from ground to tower, and the list goes on.

I think the old guys probably understand all the issues far better than you do.

 

[dbrownie]

"Jim Gibbons of Nevada said the regulation currently enforced is outdated and changing it over time would save jobs and retain experienced pilots"

Meanwhile thousands of experienced pilots continue their furlough, and job loss, while those who knew age 60 was it, change their mind...

I aggree "save jobs and retain experienced pilots".
Give me a break!
Save who's jobs?
Retain "experienced pilots" Yea there hard to come by...
What about the thousands
of "experienced" pilots on the street.
Age sixtyrule change is about GREED pure and simple.
Dave B

 

[FoxHunter]

If it passes you'll see a great big difference if FAA physicals. ALPA has put out some literature lately illuminating the history of the Age 60 rule and a comparison to other countries that have higher retirement ages. It's a pretty interesting read. Pretty scary too. Brittish are paying $2000 for physicals, usually paid for by the company and the "nanny state."

Whatever happens, it won't be just a change in the retirment age. There will be conditions.

That is pure ignorant BS. The Brits have always had to do their Initial Class I at Gatwick. The initial requirements have always exceeded what we have to get with the FAA. The initial medical included Eye check w/drops, EEG, ECG, Chest xray, blood work, lung capacity, full half day, and cost about $600, and yes all the same if the initial is done at age 21 or age 40. All further exams are give by FAA style examiners. Since most Europeans smoke more, drink more, exercise far less than their American cousins their fitness at age 60 would become more of a question that the average American pilot. ALPA literature is far from illuminating, it is a total distortion of fact, but what else is new? The only pension ALPA has been able to protect is DWs. I'm sure you would agree that he deserves a pension of $149,000 for eight years as ALPA President, or $223,000 if he serves another 4 year term. This is of course on top of any NWA pension earned.

 

[sandman2122]

Notice the senior and/or retired pilots who want this policy changed to age 65 are the ones who got their job 20 to 30 years ago because people had to reitre at 60 and make room for them!

Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too. Ridiculous!

VOTE NO

 

[TAZ MAN]

Notice the senior and/or retired pilots who want this policy changed to age 65 are the ones who got their job 20 to 30 years ago because people had to retire at 60 and make room for them!

Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too. Ridiculous!

VOTE NO

You are absolutely right. As well as you would and will in their position. When your an FO you want that left seat. When you can see retirement coming up, you want to hang on as long as possible. We are all walking contradictions.

 

[skykid]

Another thing I heard is a lot of the 60+ guys coming back will be so hyped up on the Viagra they will miss even the loud radio calls. Just think of the harassment at the layovers. This must be stopped. Its an outrage. I just emailed Senator Clinton and Boxer and informed them of this fact. The Senate bill is now officially dead. Sleep well Sandman.

 

[klhoard]

I believe you're thinking of Valujet. The EWR accident . . . <snip>. . ..

.
.
Nooooooooooooooooo, the ValueJet accident happened in the Everglades; that is in Florida.
.
.
EWR is an airport way north of the Everglades up in a place called New Jersey. . .
.
.
Two different accidents, same basic cause. . . .
.
.
I still don't see what the age of the pilots has to do with cargo catching fire.
.
.

 

[labbats]

Some people define who they are by what they do for a living. That being the case, I fully support extending the age to 65.

The problem lies in the fact that financially crippled airlines have enough problems as it is. Now you want to glom on for another 5 years at max pay. Not only that, but you're now setting the standard for average retirement at 65. I don't want that.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Why is it age discrimination at 60 but not at 65?

How did they come up with 60? Was there any age related tests done prior to CR Smith at American getting his political buddies to make an age limit on Pilots to get rid of his older more rebelious Pilots in the union? I dont think so! So why do we have to wait until age 62 to get partial Social Security and age 67 to get full Social Security and age 65 to get Medicare if we are forced to retire at 60? Seems like total Bull$hit to me! Thats why I am for extending it to something longer than 60! 65 would take you to the most important one of all IMO and that is health care that can literally wipe you out overnight if your not covered.

 

[sgu]

JUST SAY NO! I like Cathay Pacific's, and ATC's retirement age of 55!

 

[sandman2122]

TAZ MAN:

You're right! Darn, how did you figure me out?! I can't believe you know what my personal/professional plans are for early retirement! OR in my case (since I'm like all pilots) hanging on until 65, or what the heck, 75!

You don't know me, so you don't speak for me....

VOTE NO

 

[321 busdriver]

I was simply responding to the post that blamed some over 60 pilots as being responsible for an accident. As for the EWR accident... 07/31/97. Google it and stop trying to be a smartass!

.
.
Nooooooooooooooooo, the ValueJet accident happened in the Everglades; that is in Florida.
.
.
EWR is an airport way north of the Everglades up in a place called New Jersey. . .
.
.
Two different accidents, same basic cause. . . .
.
.
I still don't see what the age of the pilots has to do with cargo catching fire.
.
.

 

[Echopapa]

A321 Driver...are you talking about a MD-11 accident at EWR that occured in 97? Look it up on google and stop being such a dumba$$.

 

[321 busdriver]

I did originally say that it was a DC-10. I have since corrected myself. Wow, what a mistake! Although not as bad as saying it was caused by hasmat. That makes me a dumba$$? Interesting. Boy did this get away from the age 60 rule.

A321 Driver...are you talking about a MD-11 accident at EWR that occured in 97? Look it up on google and stop being such a dumba$$.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Greedy bastards.

This bill must not survive.

They had their advancement due to the age 60 rule. We want ours.

Fk 'em, I say.

I will accept the rule when it helps me and when it forces me out. Fair is fair.

 

[coolyokeluke]

There are guys at U that never upgraded and never got the chance to move to bigger aircraft. The difference between 60 and something higher could be the difference in staying in your home or moving into an apt. In helping your kids go to college or not, etc.,etc.

So by retaining captains past sixty it would help these guys move into the left seat how? It just means they'd be in the right seat at an older age as the guys in the left seat stayed there until 65. Does the age 60 rule catch pilots by suprise? I can see it now "What, this is my last flight?! but I haven't saved for retirement, my kids are in college, my two alimonies cost ___, etc". Don't get me wrong, unforseen bad things happen in this industry to good people but you know retirement is coming; plan accordingly. The pilots retiring benefitted by the age 60 rule by creating vacancies to be filled and upgrades and now they want to shut that door to those aspiring to move up. If you need the money that bad find another job after you're 60, people do it all the time.

 

[Andy]

Based on how close things were in last congress, this bill will likely pass. For those opposed (like myself), the only thing that I can think to do is include the following in any letters to congress:
1) Mention as many crashes as possible that have occurred with 2 over 60 pilots. Lou Holz's crew was mentioned; how about the crew that was supposed to fly the senior Bush down to South America? They crashed short of the runway in Houston. Anyone know of other over 60 accidents?
2) Recommend that anyone over age 60 can NOT act as pilot in command due to compromising safety.
3) Recommend a gradual change to the retirement age, so that more safety data can be collected. I am in favor of increasing retirement age initially by 6 months, followed by a one month increase every quarter (3 months). This will increase retirement age by 4 months every year the new rule is in effect.


Again, I oppose any change in the rules, but think that it is very likely to pass this time around. The best that we can do is make it more palatable to all concerned. I think that #2 and #3 can accomplish that.

 

[semperfido]

if i had a well funded 20-30 yr pension, then 60 works. however if i didn't, then i am afraid 60 would not work. the trend seems to be for companys to do away with the pension plans. it will be increasingly more difficult for people to afford to retire at 60. it seems inevitable that this rule will be relaxed. i know quite a few pilots that plan to fly past 60. some have 2nd wives with small children. just the way it is.

 

[PastFastMover]

semper,

Well said. It all depends on where you are at. If yourcompany has taken away your pension, you will probably want to flyon. If you are older, worked for a number of companys, and nowonly have a 401K, you will most likely want to fly on. I thinkthis is a new dynamic from those wishing to fly past 60 in yearspast. I personally want to retire in less than 2 years. Ifmy company takes away my pension, then I will have to reconsider. The entire industry is in the the last stages of deregulation enactedback in 1978. In my opinion if you work for a 121 company in theUSA you will be working past 60 sooner rather than later. Theonly question is, will you be able to get out before it is enacted ifyou are financially able to.

 

[Cyclone]

age 60

why is it that all of these 59 1/2 year old wankers (who want the law changed) were completely unaware...poor naive little things...that when they were hired X years ago...that there was a statute...and that when they turn 60 they will be done. weird huh?

It's not all about them...no...honest...they're trying to help the younger guys.

 

[PHXFLYR]

Age 65 ....not only NO,but HEL- NO . I don't care what my financial situation is when it's my time to go,leave it at age 60. Now,if they wanted to lower the age to 55........

PHXFLYR

 

[nimtz]

Since most Europeans smoke more, drink more, exercisefar less than their American cousins their fitness at age 60 wouldbecome more of a question that the average American pilot.

Fitness?!? You honestly tell me that the average American (wherethe obseity rate is highest worldwide by far) approaching sixty is morefit then the average European of same age? As far asfitness, have you seen the guts on many of our old guys flying the bigiron. This part of your post is pathetically ignorant. I'msure most informed travelers would enjoy a good laugh at your arguement.

 

[qmaster3]

Fitness?!? You honestly tell me that the average American (wherethe obseity rate is highest worldwide by far) approaching sixty is morefit then the average European of same age? As far asfitness, have you seen the guts on many of our old guys flying the bigiron. This part of your post is pathetically ignorant. I'msure most informed travelers would enjoy a good laugh at your arguement.

Why did everyone quit smoking to get fat?

 

[coolyokeluke]

Why did everyone quit smoking to get fat?

Maybe heart attack is a better way to go than cancer?

 

[HalinTexas]

FoxHunter: That is pure ignorant BS. The Brits have always had to do their Initial Class I at Gatwick. The initial requirements have always exceeded what we have to get with the FAA. The initial medical included Eye check w/drops, EEG, ECG, Chest xray, blood work, lung capacity, full half day, and cost about $600, and yes all the same if the initial is done at age 21 or age 40. All further exams are give by FAA style examiners. Since most Europeans smoke more, drink more, exercise far less than their American cousins their fitness at age 60 would become more of a question that the average American pilot. ALPA literature is far from illuminating, it is a total distortion of fact, but what else is new? The only pension ALPA has been able to protect is DWs. I'm sure you would agree that he deserves a pension of $149,000 for eight years as ALPA President, or $223,000 if he serves another 4 year term. This is of course on top of any NWA pension earned.

I'm sure ALPA would spend that kind of money to get it that wrong. And, who the he!! are you? If you're so **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** smart why aren't you leading something to change it instead of collecting "purple tail" types and bitching about how ALPA sux? They've sure been good to you.

Read it yourself: www. crewroom.alpa.org Click on the "IN FOCUS: The FAA Age 60 Rule"

 

[typhoonpilot]

Here is my two cents. Please don't attack me on a personal level. I won't attack you. Lets keep this a mature discussion among professionals who might agree to disagree.

Some of this has already been said. Those who look a little beyond the personal desires and emotions of the moment can see logically that there are different groups. If I was lucky enough to be a senior DAL, AA, NWA, Fedex, Southwest pilot then there is no way I would want to work past 60. I could retire with a million dollar plus pension or lump sum. Heck, if it all came together by 55 then I'd be gone. Sadly though, the reality is that only 5% or less of professional airline pilots ever reach that point. The rest of us will be at varying levels of income, with or without defined pensions, IRAs, 401Ks, etc of much lower amounts. Maybe some will invest well and be able to go at 60, but that isn't reality.

A lot of the younger guys on this board have bought the mutual fund industry's propaganda that you can invest in IRAs and such and retire a millionaire. That just isn't true, unless you are a superior investor. I started an IRA at age 23 and it has done pretty well, but it will be nowhere near what would sustain a middle class lifestyle when I hit 60. I also started with a major airline at age 24 and had one of the industry's best pension plans. It would have been more than enough, but it is gone now and I will be lucky to get $1000 per month from the PBGC at age 60.

Some guys, in retrospect, the smart ones, spend 20 years in active/reserve duty and will get a nice little pension plus health benefits. The money probably isn't enough to sustain a middle class lifestyle but those medical benefits are huge. Most of us won't have that and we need to do something to cover ourselves between age 60 and 65. Our companies sure aren't doing a good job at that. If they do, it costs some serious coin.

The other part of this and one that most fail to recognize is that a large percentage of guys don't make it to age 60 in the first place. So these arguments of being held up in seniority and not gettting hired are a little exaggerated. Sure it will slow things down a tad, but not really that much. Take a look at the top of a seniority list at any major and you'll probably count numerous guys out sick ( extended sick leave, medically disability, etc ). How may guys die of heart attacks in their 40s and 50s ?. How many have to fight cancer, diabetes, etc ? It is only a lucky few who remain healthy up to age 60.

It is time for the age 60 rule to go. Most of us will need the choice of a few extra years working to be able to retire comfortably from our chosen profession. You may not realize it when you are in your 20s and 30s, but as time rolls on you'll begin to see the hard reality.


Typhoonpilot

 

[pilot141]

Two things:

1. Where you stand on this largely depends on what seat you arein right now. If you're left-seat widebody, then HEY! Keep thegravy train running!

If you are anything BUT left-seat widebody (or widest body at your carrier) then you want the old guys out the door at 60.

In either case, what is being proposed is changing the rules of thegame DURING the game. This (IMO) is unfair. Yes I'm a junior puke, butone of the reasons I wanted to fly 121 was because I could retire at 60and actually go enjoy the rest of my life! Who wants to work until theydie?

Also, I must take exception with 321 busdriver's originalcomplaint (largely concerning the pilots at U). Yes, the guysat U havebeen through the wringer and have had taken it in the shorts.But howwill changing this rule help them? The 18-year F/O's will REMAIN F/O'suntil at least the 23-year point now. And the 16-year furloughees cancount on another 5 years on the street. In addition, this legislationdoesn't just address U. It will affect all carriers. How about all the60-yr old guys at FedEx who are rolling back to the panel to wait outthe new contract? When they leave the left seat someone moves up, butchange that rule and you've just frozen upgrades for five years. Not tomention the thousands and thousands of pilots on furlough who canexpect their recall dates to be extended by years if this passes.

A few very vocal and visible (senior) pilots would benefit from thischange, but the large, unheard (at least by ALPA) majority would begrievously harmed.

Point #2.

Notice how the legislation was worded. It only addresses SocialSecurity retirement age. IMO this is for one purpose: decreased expectations. If they originally propose a bill that immediatelyincreases the age to 65 they will get an earful. But 6 months down theroad they propose 62 1/2 with a 6 month phase in.....and suddenly a"compromise" doesn't look so bad to us. Before you know it wefind ourselves debating minutia like the phase-in scheduleor future increases in the age. We will have lost the battle.

If you can define the argument you have the advantage, and congress just defined the argument for us.

Six months from now, don't lose sight of the original goal: NO change to age 60.

PS. Previewed this thing twice and both times spaces got eatenbetweenwords. Must be a Firefox thing, but I can't fix it. Sorry fortherun-together words in places!

 

[AKAAB]

I've brought this up before. The way I see it, it's unfair to force a person out of his job before his Social Security and Medicare are available. The first thing Congress should do is pass a bill stating that if you are forced to retire from any job by government regulation or rule prior to your SS/Medicare eligibility date, your benefits will accelerate to the date you are forced to retire.

I'll gladly go at 60, but it's not fair to deny me the retirement benefits every other worker in America enjoys when they retire.

AKAAB

 

[qmaster3]

Maybe heart attack is a better way to go than cancer?

I don't know....being fat will give you both

 

[TAZ MAN]

TAZ MAN:

You're right! Darn, how did you figure me out?! I can't believe you know what my personal/professional plans are for early retirement! OR in my case (since I'm like all pilots) hanging on until 65, or what the heck, 75!

You don't know me, so you don't speak for me....

VOTE NO

Wow! As uptight you seem to be you will no doubt need to retire early. If you make it that far.

Chill dude.